Buffalo Bills Consensus Draft Grades

[hondo in seattle]

Although I gave it a B, I do have concerns.

 

Ignoring special teams, there are four areas in a football contest.  Run offense, pass offense, run defense, pass defense.   As I see it right now, only one of those (pass defense) got better.  

 

I dread seeing King Henry again and still wish for a speedy separator at wideout.  

[The Frankish Reich]

I've always answered the endless debate - do you draft the best player available or do you draft for need? - this way.

 

Bad teams always have to draft the best player available (with a possible exception of QB).

Good teams always have to use the draft to fill specific needs.

We did what good teams need to do. 

 

If you look at some hypothetical measure like "future value added" or some such unquantifiable thing, well, I guess we're in the middle of the pack. 

If you look at some hypothetical measure like "win expectancy added over the next 4 years," I think we did pretty well, since you'll have more talented young players taking roster spots from less talented old players.

[US Egg]

On 4/18/2025 at 12:18 PM, US Egg said:

Draft all 'D' this year.

A-

[RyanC883]

14 hours ago, GASabresIUFan said:

Love the first 3 picks, but other than Hawes, I didn’t see much I really like after the 3rd rd.  
 

I hate that we didn’t get a speed receiver to take the cover off the D especially with so many sitting there in the 4th rd.  Also don’t like missing on a real safety with 3/4 of our safeties on one year deals.  
 

Drafting 3 CB is a pretty big indictment on the quality of our depth beyond Johnson and Benford.  Dane Jackson and Ingram aren’t surviving camp.  
 

Grade A for the first 3 picks.  
Grade C- for the rest.  Overall a B.

 

Agree with this.  First 3 were very good, others were like the Bills trying to outthink themselves.  The guy from KY who is not a stud in college will be impactful in the NFL, unlikely.  Give me CJ West instead.  Then taking a bevy of CBs when you drafted Hariston and have needs at WR, S, and LB.  Weird.  

[Saint Doug]

25 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

I've always answered the endless debate - do you draft the best player available or do you draft for need? - this way.

 

Bad teams always have to draft the best player available (with a possible exception of QB).

Good teams always have to use the draft to fill specific needs.

We did what good teams need to do. 

 

If you look at some hypothetical measure like "future value added" or some such unquantifiable thing, well, I guess we're in the middle of the pack. 

If you look at some hypothetical measure like "win expectancy added over the next 4 years," I think we did pretty well, since you'll have more talented young players taking roster spots from less talented old players.

It’s ridiculous people still think Beane drafts BPA at this point. We have years of a draft record now and it’s abundantly clear 1st/2nd day picks are based on need. The difference is, and this is where people get confused, there is usually 1-3 positional “needs” on a team. You pick the BPA within this confine. Still, need comes 1st and BPA comes 2nd. 
 

In the past, selecting based on need was looked down upon. This was when rookies “developed” on the bench for a few years. Now, draftees are expected to start writhing 1-2 years. Drafting based on need is the proper way of building a team.

[The Frankish Reich]

1 minute ago, Saint Doug said:

It’s ridiculous people still think Beane drafts BPA at this point. We have years of a draft record now and it’s abundantly clear 1st/2nd day picks are based on need. The difference is, and this is where people get confused, there is usually 1-3 positional “needs” on a team. You pick the BPA within this confine. Still, need comes 1st and BPA comes 2nd. 
 

In the past, selecting based on need was looked down upon. This was when rookies “developed” on the bench for a few years. Now, draftees are expected to start writhing 1-2 years. Drafting based on need is the proper way of building a team.

If high picks don't play a lot in 1-2 years, you've kind of already failed since (except for first rounders) they're only under team control for 4 years. 

 

I disagree, however, that drafting based on need is the proper way of building a team. It's the proper way of trying to keep a very good playoff team at the top for additional years. But it's not a good way of launching a bad team on a winning trajectory.

[NastyNateSoldiers]

15 hours ago, Victory Formation said:

I have been brutal on Beane in the past but credit where it’s due, I cannot give this draft anything less than an A.

 

His first four picks (Hairston, Sanders, Jackson and Walker) were all home runs and I liked the positions that he drafted after that..

 

Outside of his 2018 draft class where he took Josh Allen, this may be his best draft after that..

 

I’m going to give this an A.

 

Well done Beane, you did good..

I'll be happy with 3 base hits and 1 homerun! 😂 

[Don Otreply]

It was an A for me, even though I wanted a WR earlier on, 

1 hour ago, Saint Doug said:

It’s ridiculous people still think Beane drafts BPA at this point. We have years of a draft record now and it’s abundantly clear 1st/2nd day picks are based on need. The difference is, and this is where people get confused, there is usually 1-3 positional “needs” on a team. You pick the BPA within this confine. Still, need comes 1st and BPA comes 2nd. 
 

In the past, selecting based on need was looked down upon. This was when rookies “developed” on the bench for a few years. Now, draftees are expected to start writhing 1-2 years. Drafting based on need is the proper way of building a team.

Nowadays it’s a needs driven operation, Beane himself has said as much on more that one occasion, 

[Saint Doug]

2 hours ago, The Frankish Reich said:

If high picks don't play a lot in 1-2 years, you've kind of already failed since (except for first rounders) they're only under team control for 4 years. 

 

I disagree, however, that drafting based on need is the proper way of building a team. It's the proper way of trying to keep a very good playoff team at the top for additional years. But it's not a good way of launching a bad team on a winning trajectory.

I agree with this. But if you are starting at ground level, then most positions are a need. In this case, every pick will be a need and also the BPA. 

[MasterStrategist]

8 hours ago, Ralonzo said:

 

I am convinced the Bills just flipped a coin at 170 to decide which order to draft the guys they liked for 170/173/177. Trouble is everyone in the world knew they LOVED Chris Paul. They took Hancock first as a project to backup safety/nickel, and the Rams snaked 172 to steal their guy. Hindsight, blah blah, but with the CB's taken in this draft, LB is now officially the weak group on the roster as it seems there was no plan B there. Bernard is extended but is always an injury risk at that size. Milano is near the end. Dorian hasn't taken the reins. Spector is all of the injury trouble of the first two combined, but all of the coverage ability of grass. Eddie O looks like a spindly-legged safety. They must love them some Andreessen, I don't know. I can see any bad luck at that position and you're back to flipping to Rolodex to 'K' for Klein or something.

I mean we did draft Ulofoshio last year.  Another 5th rounder...more athletic than Paul.

 

Takes 1 season plus as a LB in our system to "play fast", not think and naturally be in position.  Took Bernard, Dorian, etc.

 

So Bernard, Milano, Dorian, Ulofoshio, Joe Andreesen.  

 

I disagree with Eddie O, which is really Eddie U 😄.  I don't see Paul stepping into that LB4 role better than Ulofoshio this year.

 

Not concerned about LB depth right now

[DaVinci]

This draft does nothing to improve on the fact that the last 2 years in the playoffs with the game on the line they could not score.